I was going to answer any further inquiries you may have made to any of my follow up posts, but your asshattedness in describing the founding fathers
of this country as jerks instantly changed my mind. Tuned out...leaving you to the grandeur that is your own mind...

The founding fathers were jerks, I have no respect for them. The best thing they put in the constitution is that we can change it, so we can
fix all their mistakes.

Mighty HIGH talk from a person who could probably not open a lemonade stand without militarized interference or protection from a 19 year old kid. As
opposed those who openly spilled tea into a harbor, suffered through natural hardships and starvation under the OPEN threat of a hostile government,
fought a revolution, and wrote a document that you STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!

Your comment demonstrates absolute asshattery at its finest...

Do you know why they spilled tea in the harbor??? It was corporate warfare...the entire revolutionary war was to increase the profits of the founding
fathers...they all financially benefitted from it. They were made that England was cutting into their profits, so they started a war. "Freedom"
and "Independence" is just the motive they fed to the common folk to inspire them to go die for them. Let's not even start talking about them
discussing equality while owning slaves.

Like I said, I have little respect for the founders. Thank god they allow us to fix their mistakes.

I was going to answer any further inquiries you may have made to any of my follow up posts, but your asshattedness in describing the founding fathers
of this country as jerks instantly changed my mind. Tuned out...leaving you to the grandeur that is your own mind...

edit on 30-4-2013 by
totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2013 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

So I have an opinion on the founders...and that makes it ok for you to start personal insults....nice.

The founding fathers concocted the
Great Compromise when they wrote
the Constitution.

The Great Compromise was to
ensure that slavery was eventually abolished.

Don't believe me?

Read "Coopers Union" speech by
Abraham Lincoln (the first Republican President)
to gain the necessary insight into the minds
and voting records of the founding fathers and
framers of that utmost unique document
The Constitution of the United States of America.

You appear to have a higher intelligence than normal (normal 90-110 IQ)
I suggest you begin using it so as not to continually
write posts which incline me to consider otherwise.

I don't follow how the Great Compromise was put in to assure the abolishment of slavery. Why would having a Senate and a House assure the
abolishment of slavery...seems like it would make it that much more complicated, having to pass two bodies instead of one.

Cooper's Union speech by Lincoln was just Lincoln's opinion on what he thought the framers had in mind. And he only argued that they allowed the
Federal Government to regulate slavery...not that they intended for it to be eventually abolished.

The simple question is if the founders were against slavery, why not just abolish it outright? There is no justification for not doing so if they
actually didn't agree with the practice of slavery.

Does he, or you, understand that the Boston police don't operate under the Constitution of the United States? That the Constitution applies to the
federal government and not local police?

I have read through this thread, and I found this situation worthy of investigation. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees:
""[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of
his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men."

The Due Process Clause has been upheld in McDonald V Chicago, whereby the Second Amendment was imposed upon the state by the federal government.

"LymanTrumbull, speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, said: "There is no change in that respect so far as the States are concerned, and the Federal Government cannot interfere with the
States so long as they do not deprive some person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law""

Lyman Trumbull was the author of the 13th Amendment, so he takes standing. See Gitlow v. New York and Duncan v. Louisiana; the former imposed the 1st
Amendment upon the states and the latter imposed the 6th Amendment upon the states.

I say this, not as one looking to argue (as it seems to be what people enjoy doing, instead of researching for themselves (I'm guilty of this as
well)). I wanted to get your input on these cases and see what bearing you think it may, or may not, have on this particular incident.

ETA: Wanted to point out that I understand no one was injured while the police searched the houses. Still, I cannot help but contemplate that this
would fall under "bodily restraint".

The simple question is if the founders were against slavery, why not just abolish it outright? There is no justification for not doing so if they
actually didn't agree with the practice of slavery.

Here you are correct.
The simple answer is that they were, excuse me, intelligent enough to know that they needed to create the great compromise in order to form a United
States, knowing as well that the eventual abolition of slavery was going to have to happen.

Read the entire Coopers Union speech did you?, did your attention span last that long?

If there had been no united states, then the anti slavery states would never be able to influence the pro slavery states.

Use your head for something besides a hat rack, do your own INDEPENDENT research and thinking.

edit on 1-5-2013 by slugger9787 because: If
there had been no united states, then the anti slavery states would never be able to influence the pro slavery states

I have a beef with the fact that in our society we cannot do anything without a camera recording every freaking action. Yes, I have a beef with
surveillance cams which are designed to keep us all in line. Yes, I have especially a beef with in-home cameras put in by the Nanny State to make sure
citizens comply with Big Brother.

Didn't you ever read "Nineteen Eighty Four"?

If you are in public...you are fair game...you have no privacy. Citizens can record you, businesses can record you, and government can record
you....I have zero problem with that. I would like to see more CCTV cameras all over our cities akin to England.

The cameras in home you are talking about, I know what you are talking about and I don't think you have your facts straight. The cameras aren't in
peoples homes, but in some cases for "troubled families" in England, they can be moved to a government "home" that has cameras in them to make
sure they aren't beating the crap out of their kids. Sounds like a better plan than the system we have, which is snatching the kids away from the
parents. I would support a system like that as well.

I would rather have no cameras at all because I don't like "peeping toms". Your attitude scares me quite a bit and I am liberal/progressive
overall. But liberals have been taken over by the dark side and totally controlled. The rothschilds dominate england and to a lesser extent the rest
of the world. You have no idea about the great conspiracy going back to babylon.

Cameras did not exist, at least in volume, as they have the last 20 years and people got along just fine. The military did its job, the police did
its job and people went along living with privacy being respected. This is becoming less and less common now and I resent that.

It is NOT about me brother. It is about all the millions of americans that got deceived the past week! Don't you think THEY care about what
happened to them? Really I am not important? Is anyone important? How brainwashed can you possibly be to think the government does not have to
prove anything?

How were they deceived?

All I have heard is speculation...all different kinds of speculation. They can't all be correct. Either the Government did it, or they were all
actors, or the brothers were CIA agents that went rogue...they can't all be true.

All of you have crazy theories with no proof...but you sit there and claim that people were deceived even though you really have no proof for anything
you are talking about.

Yes I think they were deceived but I can't prove it. I also think aliens exist here on earth but I can't prove it.

What needs to happen? Should we simply believe the government or try to make the puzzle fit? Sharing ideas helps win the good fight.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
Does he, or you, understand that the Boston police don't operate under the Constitution of the United States? That the Constitution applies to the
federal government and not local police?

If you think thats how this works then you've discredited yourself to no end.

My blood is still boiling over all this. I've been out of politics for a couple years since cancer turned my mom inside out, and been trying to
perfect my own freedom and actually be able to eat decent at the same time... but now IIB is back.

I got really fired up over how this went down and got my first and hopefully last "Extreme T&C violation since I became a member of this site. Which
I must say I deserved.....

But the idea of people thinking it is AOK to have people at gun point to be ushered by the "Gestapo" out of their homes when they have done nothing
wrong and THEN seeing my fellow Americans defend this kind of action by the "Gestapo" really sent me over the edge........

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.